4 ms·
His anecdote explicitly mentions the possibility of it being a placebo.
by BeetleB 1y ago
His anecdote explicitly mentions the possibility of it being a placebo.
- jacobgkau 1y agoNo it doesn't. It doesn't contain the word "placebo." Can you quote where it "explicitly mentions" what you're saying it does?
- robertakarobin 1y ago> If I have a good day it's impossible to day whether that's due to Prozac. But since starting Prozac I have been much more likely to have good days than bad. So, since Prozac is cheap and I don't seem to suffer any side effects, I plan to keep taking it in perpetuity. I was acknowledging that the "good days" could be due to Prozac or could be a placebo effect, but since being on Prozac correlates with having significantly more good days, and I experience virtually no ill effects, I choose to continue with it.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- some_guy_nobel 1y agoWow, a shockingly argumentative tone for someone who is just flat out wrong. Beyond the response someone else commented explaining exactly where the comparison was mentioned, the anecdote itself is useful in offering an experience of someone who's life has been changed by the drug. In any case, the study mentioned in the article is a meta-analysis about children, not adults, so there is no onus on OP to qualify anything about placebo or not.
- ozim 1y agoSome people just need to have stuff spelled out for them.
- in_cahoots 1y agoTo be fair, I didn't read that suggestion as being about a possible placebo effect, just that you can't attribute any one good day to the pill. It's like climate change- it undeniably exists, but you can't blame climate change for a single heat wave or freak storm.
- cstrahan 1y agoYou read it that way because that’s the sensible way to read it. Everyone suggesting you missed the plot is in turn making a rather large logical leap.